If I tell my kids that there are no real werewolves or ghosts, am I "teaching a theory as fact"?

I say that there are no gods (as they have been described by people) exactly the same way that I say that there are no vampires, werewolves, mermaids, elves, fairies, witches, angels, ghosts, or chupacabras. Most religious people have given up believing in most of those things, too.

Because there is no evidence that any of them exist, and we have much better scientific explanations for supposedly supernatural events. Like, germs cause disease, not spells cast by witches. Yet, there is still the need to hold onto that one last supernatural being. No evidence for it either. It's like people have rolled all the other magical things into one big magic thing and can't give it up. Not sure why.

Well, if there is no god, then where did the universe come from? If there are no banshees, then what was that strange howling noise outside my house last night? Huh? Tell me that, smarty-pants!

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Well, if there is no god, then where did the universe come from? If there are no banshees, then what was that strange howling noise outside my house last night? Huh? Tell me that, smarty-pants!

I am pretty sure what you heard outside your house last night was your neighbor's dog or cat or panda.

Unlike the noise you heard last night, the earth, ocean, people, and the universe there is evidence for their existence, not to mention they are tangible.

They are also evidence that no creator was needed. And still tangible. But experiments show that if you learn about science while humming your favorite hymn (Onward Christians Soldiers or whatever), the information goes in crooked and ends up looking like something else.

They are also evidence that no creator was needed. And still tangible. But experiments show that if you learn about science while humming your favorite hymn (Onward Christians Soldiers or whatever), the information goes in crooked and ends up looking like something else.

Believers believe due to lack of education.

All we believers have to do is learn more and educate ourselves better, then we will see the evidence that there is no god..........

All we believers have to do is learn more and educate ourselves better, then we will see the evidence that there is no god..........

Thank you for your info. but no thanks.

You just illustrated a large part of what he was talking about.

He wasn't saying that believers were not educated - indeed, many believers are educated. He was saying that religious belief tends to be the most prevalent where education is the most lacking. And that means, whether you like it or not, that many people are going to draw the connection between "poorly educated" and "highly religious". Is it any wonder that religion is declining?

What you should be doing is pushing for education in religious states, so as to dispel that correlation, not acting as if it's something unimportant that you can do without. Because it really isn't. The days when all people needed was "reading, riting, and rithmetic" are long gone. For that matter, the days when people could get good, high-paying jobs straight out of high school are also gone, although that's more because high school standards have declined so much - in large part because of people who are afraid that education will hurt their religiosity (though they don't generally put it quite that bluntly).

I don't particularly care if people want to hold religious beliefs. But they have no business sabotaging their futures, and their children's futures, for the sake of those religious beliefs.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Atheist Fool™ it isn't just your average cough medicine but it cures gaseous odors, as well. It is currently only pill-form but coming soon: Liquid Atheist Fool™ -- for those hard to reach places. Only $59.95 per bottle (minus State, Federal, and Stupidity taxes).

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

I agree. It's hard to cipher how invisible things can be "clearly seen."So, let's assume, for the sake of understanding, that it means what it says.

So what is "clearly seen":

Infinite complexity-The closer you look, the more there is to see.Big - like no-end-in-sight big.Delicate - every big thing we see is made of millions of small parts.Reliable - not much changes at all.

So that passage is making clear that what God has created is not God.But it reflects his divine nature. So our reality is proof enough of God.Those who don't have a Bible are not off the playing field. Becauseof Creation, there is no excuse for not knowing God.

all it makes clear to me is some ancient folks claimed god is there an did what they attribute to him/them.what makes any of it divine? some kid was run over here the other day at a 4th of july parade by his dad - drive of the float. we who saw that witnessed nothing divine or nothing of his divine nature. bu let me guess, thats sin right? not part of his creation?

In the original creation, we existed like God. Then man turned away from that existence to be more independent.

In the original creation, we existed like God. Then man turned away from that existence to be more independent.

Bullshit. Your god[1] kicked them out once they knew good and evil, like it did. In other words, they were kicked out for becoming partially like your god. In fact, your god was so scared/frightened/pissing in his pants at the idea of them becoming immortal like it was, that it kicked them out (once its decision was approved by the other gods, obviously; your god can't do anything by itself).

In the original creation, we existed like God. Then man turned away from that existence to be more independent.

Bullshit. Your god[1] kicked them out once they knew good and evil, like it did. In other words, they were kicked out for becoming partially like your god. In fact, your god was so scared/frightened/pissing in his pants at the idea of them becoming immortal like it was, that it kicked them out (once its decision was approved by the other gods, obviously; your god can't do anything by itself).

Nope. Nothing in either creation story states that humans were made immortal, and indeed, Genesis 3:22 pretty explicitly states that humans needed to eat of the fruit of the tree of life to be immortal.

Last I checked, Paul wasn't around during that time, so he does not count as a reputable source of information about the Garden of Eden. His assumption that death didn't originally exist is just that, an assumption, and thus should not be considered a reputable source for events in that time and place.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

You are right! I can not be "pretty sure" about what you heard last night, but you and I both agree that you've heard something. Right? cause and effect.

Cause=Banshee or unknown animal (the Creator), effect=the noise (the universe)

You heard something last night so there has to be something which cause the noise it could be your neighbor's dog or it could be a banshee in you head. You just don't hear a noise without a cause.

So let me ask you

when you and your kid hear a noise (you don't know what it is), at night and your kid asks you "Mommy what's that noise outside"?what do you tell him/her?

Quote

Can you prove that the howling noise was not a banshee? Convince me that I did not hear a supernatural monster screeching for my soul.

Sure, you would have to prove that the universe was not created by God first.

Now we are getting somewhere.

You realize that I cannot prove to you that there is no god. Just like we cannot prove to you that there are no elves, witches or ghosts. Does it necessarily follow that we must believe in the existence of all of those things, if we cannot prove they don't exist? Do we have to believe in absolutely everything that could possibly exist (no matter how improbable or silly) just because we can't prove that they aren't real? Why not just believe in everything that anyone has ever thought up?

Here is the deal. It is very hard to show evidence of a lack of something, ie. that something does not exist. It is far easier to show evidence of the presence of something that does exist. If something is really there, you should be able to detect it with some kind of evidence of that thing. Then you can evaluate the evidence to see how convincing it is.

For example, some people say a Bigfoot creature lives in the woods. I even know a very reasonable lady who swears that she saw him clearly in broad daylight. I don't know what she saw, but it was surely something. So, I can't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, because maybe he is just really good at hiding most of the time.

But I can look at the evidence and see that it is pretty flimsy-- eyewitness reports from some people, a few blurry photos from a long way away, one questionable fuzzy film, some planted hairs that turned out to be yak, etc. And I can conclude that nobody has proven Bigfoot, because the evidence is so bad. I can safely say that there is no Bigfoot, as far as the evidence shows.

And you cannot prove to me that the noise I heard last night was not a chupacabra, a baka, an avatar of Vishnu, a unicorn-- or a banshee. Does that mean you have to believe in the possibility of all of these being outside my house? If you cannot prove they don't exist, then you have to assume that they do exist. And not just casually sorta believe, but believe with all your heart and soul, and use that belief to guide your major life decisions.

Tell everyone you know about banshees, lobby to get ideas about banshees taught in the public schools to all children, have people in stores say, "beware of banshees" to customers, put up lists of ways to protect yourself from banshees in public places and government buildings. Go to banshee protection meetings at least once a week to discuss the nasty critters with like-minded people. read banshee literature. Put stuff about banshees on your car. Elect anti-banshee politicians. Go to war against countries that seem too soft on banshees......

If you find the possibility of all this ridiculous, you can only imagine how I feel about religion.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

If you find the possibility of all this ridiculous, you can only imagine how I feel about religion.

You still don't get my point.

Currently I have no interest talking about my religion or trying to defend my God.

What I am saying is "We the the universe, earth, and human and no one seem to be able to understand or explain how those were created or came into existence with bullet proof evidence."

"All we've got is speculations and theories and guesses with scientific studies and researches"

"Nothing was proven with factual evidence no matter how good they sound theories are theories not facts!"

"When you don't know for sure what causes the noise outside your house, why do you tell your kids that you know what it is and give them false information?" (e.g. the big bang theory.)

"Who cares about Banshees, unicorns, and leprechauns?"

"Isn't it more honest to just say I don't know"?

Um, the big bang theory is taught as the currently most likely candidate, not the final word. Also, those who came up with the theory predicted that the start of the universe should have created a large, detectable background radio signal, and they were perplexed for awhile because they couldn't find it. But that turned out to be because they didn't have good enough equipment back in the 40's or earlier. Once the signal was detected, it was almost exactly the frequency and strength predicted. Which sort of lent some credence to the whole idea. But nonetheless, it is a theory that could be changed by new information. And science is looking for new information daily. People are not sitting on their hands and pretending we know enough already.

It doesn't qualify as false information. It is where we are right now in our understanding of the universe. Now if you want to add an ancient god running around up there doing things down here or forking out the dough for the eternal afterlife or something, go right ahead. But if you think we don't have enough evidence for the big bang, I can pretty much assure you that evidence for the god that you personally prefer is far less obvious. Yes, you can interpret various phenomena is being in your favor, because you said so. But that, in and of itself, doesn't hold a candle to scientific observation, measurement and/or theories with strong mathematical and experimental backups. That you are trying to equate them and call them equal partners is speculation or something. Even though you are completely dependent on the old stories that you choose to believe. And completely dependent on rejecting old stories that you choose not to believe.

We who follow science understand that perfection is not an option, but that information never hurt anything. And just as we laugh at the silly things people (including scientists) believed a hundred years ago, not all of it was bunk and we couldn't possibly be where we are today without the groundbreaking work of people whose theories were eventually dismissed.

The nice thing about science is that we don't have to live in fear of any discovery. There is nothing out there that we can find that will ruin us as humans because it is too much information or information saying the wrong thing. The religious, on the other hand, have plenty to fear from science. Depending on the level of fundamentalism adhered to, new information can be inconvenient in myriad ways. Having to make up excuses for dinosaurs took a lot out of some peoples sails, and the fear that life will be found elsewhere burdens many a current believer, for whom such information would be rather inconvenient. You may have a more liberal view of religion, and think that you have less to fear from any new discoveries, but your insistence that science is low quality information and that the god thing is high quality merely belies your beliefs, not anything real and/or useful.

We can't land probes on Mars using biblical verses, we can't wipe polio off the planet using the words of Jesus, we can't solve pollution problems by reading Revelation out loud to passersby. Diss science all you want, but if the only alternative you have to offer is myth-level information with no relevance to anyone without a vivid (and limited) imagination, you aren't offering anything better.

And btw, a scientific theory is as close to a fact as it gets. A theory explains the past and predicts future events better than any current alternatives. Like, the theory of gravity, or germ theory. Same thing with evolutionary theory. They are pretty close to 100% fact, based on current knowledge. Scientists don't call it a theory until they have tested enough evidence.

Look it up. On a science site, not a religious one.....

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

And btw, a scientific theory is as close to a fact as it gets. A theory explains the past and predicts future events better than any current alternatives. Like, the theory of gravity, or germ theory. Same thing with evolutionary theory. They are pretty close to 100% fact, based on current knowledge. Scientists don't call it a theory until they have tested enough evidence.

Look it up. On a science site, not a religious one.....

I support all evolutionary theory that can be tested. But not fiction.

Um, the big bang theory is taught as the currently most likely candidate, not the final word. Also, those who came up with the theory predicted that the start of the universe should have created a large, detectable background radio signal, and they were perplexed for awhile because they couldn't find it. But that turned out to be because they didn't have good enough equipment back in the 40's or earlier. Once the signal was detected, it was almost exactly the frequency and strength predicted.

Well that's just weird. "They" predicted a background signal (some paper did, somewhere anyway). Then they couldn't find it, because it was almost exactly the strength and frequency predicted? Don't you mean 10 times less strong than the detectors they built could handle? But that didn't stop them from publishing a fake map of the sky showing a false image of something they couldn't detect.

I support all evolutionary theory that can be tested. But not fiction.

Your criteria of "testability" is too strict and impractical with a lot of historical evidence in science. Rational fit is quite sufficient for evidence that can't be expected to be reproduced through experiment.How would you "test" the finding of a rare or one-off fossil? Other than its fit with what is consistent with observed reality and the general concepts of evolution?

Quote

Tiktaalik provides insights on the features of the extinct closest relatives of the tetrapods. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, the "fins" of Tiktaalik have basic wrist bones and simple rays reminiscent of fingers.

Aside from showing the first and only fossil evidence of a spider attacking prey in its web, the piece of amber also contains the body of a male spider in the same web. This provides the oldest evidence of social behavior in spiders, which still exists in some species but is fairly rare. Most spiders have solitary, often cannibalistic lives, and males will not hesitate to attack immature species in the same web.

There is not enough time available to conduct experiments that re-run evolution. And if we did have enough time, the results might be different to what occurred first time - an outcome that happens to be entirely consistent with the theory of evolution.Of course it's all very convenient for proponents of the theory of evolution that many outcomes would be valid - but that ubiquitous convenience is itself yet more reason to think that the theory is valid The theory has so much explanatory power that we just can't find its limits when we look at the weirdness of nature.

Creation theory hits any amount of limits if we care to look. Explain the prevalence of human back ache, zits, ear hair, in-grown toenails, spontaneous abortions, Alzheimer's disease, myopia, allergies, essential vitamin requirements, etc if there was a divine designer at the helm.

Um, the big bang theory is taught as the currently most likely candidate, not the final word. Also, those who came up with the theory predicted that the start of the universe should have created a large, detectable background radio signal, and they were perplexed for awhile because they couldn't find it. But that turned out to be because they didn't have good enough equipment back in the 40's or earlier. Once the signal was detected, it was almost exactly the frequency and strength predicted.

Well that's just weird. "They" predicted a background signal (some paper did, somewhere anyway). Then they couldn't find it, because it was almost exactly the strength and frequency predicted? Don't you mean 10 times less strong than the detectors they built could handle? But that didn't stop them from publishing a fake map of the sky showing a false image of something they couldn't detect.

Don't suppose you could let on what this publication was, could you? The image on Geocities you posted doesn't really help me figure any of that out.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Um, the big bang theory is taught as the currently most likely candidate, not the final word. Also, those who came up with the theory predicted that the start of the universe should have created a large, detectable background radio signal, and they were perplexed for awhile because they couldn't find it. But that turned out to be because they didn't have good enough equipment back in the 40's or earlier. Once the signal was detected, it was almost exactly the frequency and strength predicted.

The original source is NASA. Here is a google image search:

Well that's just weird. "They" predicted a background signal (some paper did, somewhere anyway). Then they couldn't find it, because it was almost exactly the strength and frequency predicted? Don't you mean 10 times less strong than the detectors they built could handle? But that didn't stop them from publishing a fake map of the sky showing a false image of something they couldn't detect.

Don't suppose you could let on what this publication was, could you? The image on Geocities you posted doesn't really help me figure any of that out.

Oh good another link to a f**king search. You mentioned published. If your claims of being a scientist are valid I'd expect you to be able to provide a f**king citation to a publication, not "this is what I typed in Google".

Please note that I asked that question with sincerity. I really do want to know what publication you are referring to.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

And btw, a scientific theory is as close to a fact as it gets. A theory explains the past and predicts future events better than any current alternatives. Like, the theory of gravity, or germ theory. Same thing with evolutionary theory. They are pretty close to 100% fact, based on current knowledge. Scientists don't call it a theory until they have tested enough evidence.

Look it up. On a science site, not a religious one.....

I support all evolutionary theory that can be tested. But not fiction.

The field of genetics would not exist without the theory of evolution. So far, there has never been a situation where two unrelated people had the same DNA. If that happened, that would falsify the theory. It has never happened. Proof of the TOE. It is amazing to me that people can casually accept DNA matching to catch criminals and deny the reality of evolution! CSI is a test of the theory conducted by police departments every single day.

It does not really matter if we can never exactly duplicate every step in the millions of years of evolution in a lab. We can't exactly duplicate the millions of years it took for the formation of petroleum either, but petroleum clearly exists. The only test of evolutionary theory that matters is the fact that, when it is applied to real world problems, it works as the theory says it should.

The theory says that organisms inherit characteristics from previous organisms, sometimes with mutations that change the organism's ability to survive. The theory does not say that the inherited characteristics or mutations all have to make sense, only that they can't prevent the organism from living long enough to reproduce.

And we find vestigial foot bones in whales that show that they evolved from land dwelling mammals that had feet. These foot bones don't prevent whales from surviving or reproducing. But whales don't need feet. Why would a creator give whales foot bones? Just as a joke to fool later scientists?

There are many, many examples like this, some very simple to understand, like the differences between bats' wings and birds' wings. Bats evolved from mammals that had feet and claws instead of wings, and you can clearly see that the wings are extensions of feet with claws. But birds do not have feet and claws at the ends of their wings-- they evolved from different ancestors.

Others a bit more complicated like the 98% match between human and chimpanzee DNA, where the 2% difference is exactly where the TOE predicted it should be.

I think this stuff is awesome. Some religious people find it scary and threatening. Too bad, because the TOE is the truth.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Um, the big bang theory is taught as the currently most likely candidate, not the final word. Also, those who came up with the theory predicted that the start of the universe should have created a large, detectable background radio signal, and they were perplexed for awhile because they couldn't find it. But that turned out to be because they didn't have good enough equipment back in the 40's or earlier. Once the signal was detected, it was almost exactly the frequency and strength predicted.

Well that's just weird. "They" predicted a background signal (some paper did, somewhere anyway). Then they couldn't find it, because it was almost exactly the strength and frequency predicted? Don't you mean 10 times less strong than the detectors they built could handle? But that didn't stop them from publishing a fake map of the sky showing a false image of something they couldn't detect.

Lemme see. The background radiation was predicted in the late 40's. Engineers working for ATT kept picking up unknown signals in new equipment in the early 60's, and couldn't figure out what it was. Then a Princeton physicist found out about it and those radio waves proved to be the ones predicted in the 40's. And the map you are showing was produced earlier this century, over 40 years later. After much more precise equipment could be used to do the mapping. And it is referred to as a "false color" image because your god didn't have the foresight to give us the ability to see radio waves so we kinda have to fake it. And radio waves don't have color anyway.

So you were pretty much wrong about everything and yet you want to base your version of the truth on what you think is true. I'd work on that if I were you.

Um, the big bang theory is taught as the currently most likely candidate, not the final word. Also, those who came up with the theory predicted that the start of the universe should have created a large, detectable background radio signal, and they were perplexed for awhile because they couldn't find it. But that turned out to be because they didn't have good enough equipment back in the 40's or earlier. Once the signal was detected, it was almost exactly the frequency and strength predicted.

Well that's just weird. "They" predicted a background signal (some paper did, somewhere anyway). Then they couldn't find it, because it was almost exactly the strength and frequency predicted? Don't you mean 10 times less strong than the detectors they built could handle? But that didn't stop them from publishing a fake map of the sky showing a false image of something they couldn't detect.

Lemme see. The background radiation was predicted in the late 40's. Engineers working for ATT kept picking up unknown signals in new equipment in the early 60's, and couldn't figure out what it was. Then a Princeton physicist found out about it and those radio waves proved to be the ones predicted in the 40's. And the map you are showing was produced earlier this century, over 40 years later. After much more precise equipment could be used to do the mapping. And it is referred to as a "false color" image because your god didn't have the foresight to give us the ability to see radio waves so we kinda have to fake it. And radio waves don't have color anyway.

So you were pretty much wrong about everything and yet you want to base your version of the truth on what you think is true. I'd work on that if I were you.

Why is your new story (near above) completely contrary to your original story (top)?